Honestly, that's not a fair assessment on my part. For the most part, you write short stories. I don't read them. But you are unreasonable because you just won't accept why I don't read them. You pretty much take the "It must be you because it sure ain't me" stance".

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/5/2013 4:59:00 PM (view original):For those of you who don't read things but decide to repond like an ignoramus anyway, from my earlier post...

you think any of these ppl are innocent? do you? which ones? the mother who spreads her legs for someone without even thinking of the consequences? she could get free birth control from any number of source but doesn't use it. the father who just has sex without even putting on a condom? those can be gotten for free from a number of sources too. the kid that will grow up to create problems for all sorts of ppl bc of the lack of parenting it got so now it has issues? yeah when ppl suffer later bc of the kids violence and crimes and disrspect for authority and general bad attitude then you talk. when someone gets killed or is harmed by the kid or their actions bc they weren't parented properly, you can tell them its okay bc we had to let the kid grow up like this since we live in a liberal mamby pamby pathetic society that wont fix these types of things before they begin. you tell the loved ones of someone killed by a kid like that that its better the kid lives than their loved one bc you are a liberal ***** who is okay with that so they should be too. yeah now whose innocent here? none of them thats who.

The kid is innocent until he creates problems. Killing him before is killing an innocent kid.

so at what point along his path of destruction do you deal with this type of kid? when he bullies other kids? when he shows a violent temperment? when he is repeatedly disrespectful to authority? when he gradually worsens in all of these? when he comits small crimes? when he starts hurting other ppl? when he has a criminal record longer than he is tall? when he finally kills someone? maybe when he's killed more than once? cutting him off at the start not only saves money but bigger problems which are the destruction he brings to all these other ppl who are saved facing that bc he isnt around.

your defnition of innocent leaves lot to be desired. you think he so innocent, then when he kills someone bc he wasnt wiped out as child like I say, then YOU go tell the loved ones of the person he kill that his life means more than their loved ones life. YOU tell them he had to have his freedom to do whatever the **** he wanted and that ultimatey cost them the person they love when it didnt have to be that way.

better yet lets say this kid kills YOUR loved one. now sit there and tell me his life means more than they do and you are glad he was free and able to kill your loved one bc hes so **** innocnet.

You've convinced me. We need to nip this in the bud. At what point along his path of destruction do you deal with the type of kid who suggests mass murder of the poor as a solution to our social problems? When he unilaterally puts his plan into action? No, we must act, and act now.

so at what point along his path of destruction do you deal with this type of kid? when he bullies other kids? when he shows a violent temperment? when he is repeatedly disrespectful to authority? when he gradually worsens in all of these? when he comits small crimes? when he starts hurting other ppl? when he has a criminal record longer than he is tall? when he finally kills someone? maybe when he's killed more than once? cutting him off at the start not only saves money but bigger problems which are the destruction he brings to all these other ppl who are saved facing that bc he isnt around.

your defnition of innocent leaves lot to be desired. you think he so innocent, then when he kills someone bc he wasnt wiped out as child like I say, then YOU go tell the loved ones of the person he kill that his life means more than their loved ones life. YOU tell them he had to have his freedom to do whatever the **** he wanted and that ultimatey cost them the person they love when it didnt have to be that way.

better yet lets say this kid kills YOUR loved one. now sit there and tell me his life means more than they do and you are glad he was free and able to kill your loved one bc hes so **** innocnet.

Right here you're suggesting that every kid born poor will ultimately kill multiple people. That's tough to believe given that something north of 20% of our country, possibly north of 40% depending on whose numbers you like, fall below the poverty line for a developed nation, and much less than 1% of the population will ever commit a murder. You can't just assume that everyone born poor is going to become a criminal. The majority will not. And even if they WERE going to become criminals, and you knew that, it would present a significant moral conundrum. You have yet to respond to the significant point that "preemptive punishment" is entirely incompatible with a free society. That's the kind of thing you see in fascist/dictatorial states, not democratic republics. You also don't want proper trials or appeals. In this country everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of their peers. You're throwing that system out the window - again, endowing the government with an unchecked and, frankly, extremely scary power to kill off citizens. What if someone does have the resources to raise a child, but happens to be a political dissident. There are no appeals, no trial - just kill 'em as soon as they have a kid. No protection against that in your system.

Not to mention the other issues I raised that you haven't addressed in a meaningful way: how do you determine the line for ability to support children? How much does it depend on local cost of living? How large of areas is cost of living calculated for? What if the parents want to move to a cheaper area? What if the baby is conceived and 2 months later the mother loses her job? Does she die for making a perfectly responsible decision? Is that just collateral damage? Similarly, what if the father dies during pregnancy? What if the grandparents offer to raise the child? What if legitimate birth control failed? WHAT ABOUT THE DAMN MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF KILLING CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING BUT EAT, POOP, SLEEP, AND CRY? If you legitimately addressed anything maybe people would stop making fun of you, but given that you're asking us to support killing babies probably not...

the problem here is I didnt suggest anything like what you say. I simply say kids who are not raised properly cause many problems some of which ultimately lead to the suffering and even death of other ppl. not all of their actions are criminal but many are, and yes the vast majority of kids raised by parents who do not care about them or do not raise them with proper morals, ethics, etc WILL get in trouble with the law. you say my idea doesnt work in a free society which only shows that your idea of a free society and mine are quite diffrent. your idea appears to be some magic liberal mamby pamby land where anyone can do what they want. my idea of free scoeity is a place where the good ppl are actually free and do not have to worry about the troublemakers who are safely in jail or dead. if you want to call that facist so be it I will call your idea liberal BS so were even then.

but you are wrong when you say I do not want proper trials - that is exactly waht I want. the so called jury of peers is about the last thing that is proper. you get a group of 12 random ppl show them the evidence and then put them in a room so that the strongest voices can convince the others of their opinion. many of these ppl dont know anything about law or what should be evaluated other than judge instructions so they cant properly make decisions. many of them also not want to be there so they will make any decision quickly to get done with it. what there should be is a large panel of professsional jurors who are educated in law and cant be fooled by lawyer tricks and wont vote jsut be to done with it. 15 of those ppl are select for your trial and they dont talk about it or have to convince each other they just vote plain and simple by secret ballot and majority rules that way no one influences anyone else opinion. appeals are for liberal idiots and are why the judicial system in america costs so much and take so **** long to get anything done.

as i said before it is easy to determine who cna support children. you give them a shot to take care of the kid properly. assign someone to monitor how they treat the kid and if it has enough of what it needs and they document with video what is happening. parents get one warning that they are on the verge of being killed for bad parenting. get with it or else. then thats it. you dont need fancy liberal calculations of income so ppl can try to justify things. I don't care if parents want to move to cheaper area - should have already done it bc you knew the kid was coming. if mother loses her job, get another one, the kid is coming and has needs whether you have your old job or a new one. if somoene else offer to raise child, fine, they are evaluated to see if they do it right. if birth control fails it happens but you still have to raise the kid right and give it waht it needs.

that waht you don't get - the single thing that never changes is the kid still there and still has needs. you dont get to make excuses and not provide for it or raise it right. I see no moral implications in taking action that saves suffering and saves lives. the child may die but it is for the greater good which you seem to not care about in your liberal mind. so you see I have answered what you have said and yet you will continue to talk down to me I am sure bc it is who you are.

You're not very good at articulating yourself there, shawnfucious, but I think I get your point and I think it's that parents need to take care of their children and teach them proper morals and ethics. I would agree with that.

However, I think killing people off if they don't comply isn't the way to go about it. My personal opinion is that being a parent should require a license. They do it to drive, they can certainly do it to parent, which is arguably a much more important task. You don't have a license? You can't be a parent. You have several months (nine if the child is to term) to get the license, which would require learning of parenting skills and an evaluation you'd need to pass to obtain it. Don't have the license, you can't parent your child, and it's given to someone else who has a license and wants to raise an adopted child (and cut back the red tape on those people too).

That would solve the problem of terrible parents without having to kill anyone or ruffle the feathers of people like dahs so much (or am I wrong dahs and you would hate licensing parents?).

Posted by bistiza on 8/7/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):You're not very good at articulating yourself there, shawnfucious, but I think I get your point and I think it's that parents need to take care of their children and teach them proper morals and ethics. I would agree with that.

However, I think killing people off if they don't comply isn't the way to go about it. My personal opinion is that being a parent should require a license. They do it to drive, they can certainly do it to parent, which is arguably a much more important task. You don't have a license? You can't be a parent. You have several months (nine if the child is to term) to get the license, which would require learning of parenting skills and an evaluation you'd need to pass to obtain it. Don't have the license, you can't parent your child, and it's given to someone else who has a license and wants to raise an adopted child (and cut back the red tape on those people too).

That would solve the problem of terrible parents without having to kill anyone or ruffle the feathers of people like dahs so much (or am I wrong dahs and you would hate licensing parents?).

Posted by bistiza on 8/7/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):You're not very good at articulating yourself there, shawnfucious, but I think I get your point and I think it's that parents need to take care of their children and teach them proper morals and ethics. I would agree with that.

However, I think killing people off if they don't comply isn't the way to go about it. My personal opinion is that being a parent should require a license. They do it to drive, they can certainly do it to parent, which is arguably a much more important task. You don't have a license? You can't be a parent. You have several months (nine if the child is to term) to get the license, which would require learning of parenting skills and an evaluation you'd need to pass to obtain it. Don't have the license, you can't parent your child, and it's given to someone else who has a license and wants to raise an adopted child (and cut back the red tape on those people too).

That would solve the problem of terrible parents without having to kill anyone or ruffle the feathers of people like dahs so much (or am I wrong dahs and you would hate licensing parents?).

This is like a ventriloquist talking to his dummy.

the dummy is you for beating of a dead horse continually im not bis you ******* dumb ***.